The US military needs something more accurate, lethal and reliable than the M4

[Sylvain]

Im going to give you the "DING DING PUNCH"

Yeah right you would punch me but you wouldnt punch lets say ... a 10 years veteran of the US NAVY SEALs like Mack.

 

[Socomike]

I was in-country for 3 consecutive tours, 70-73. Almost everyone, where I was active, voiced a preference for the 7.62 (.308 Win.) over the 5.56. In fact, even the AK was more popular than the M16. I'm not talking about the boys back at HQ. I mean the average grunt in the field. Of course, back then, USMC recruits were all trained and range-qualified with the M14 in basic training; which may or may not explain it's popularity in the field. The M14 still remains in limited front line service, for good reason.

For ranges from 500-1000 meters, see which of those 3 calibers a sniper would choose for best effectiveness. I wouldn't use a .223 past 300-400 meters on coyotes.

The main argument given to us was the lighter weight of the M16 rifle. Given a choice; I did, and still would, pick the M14 over the M16. The weight difference, when compared to that of a field/combat pack, is insignificant.

We've already had something more lethal and reliable than a M16, so I expect the next choice will also be for other reasons. Economics or weight, maybe.

Im digging this one up from a few pages back.

While I respect your experience, and no doubt believe what you say about the 7.62 being more popular in Vietnam, you would be out of your mind to pick a M14 over an M4 (I know you said m16 but this is 2011 and the M4 is the "newest" evolution of the m16) for todays combat.

Being a Squad Designated Marksmen in the Rakkasans for 4 years, I had my choice of rifles to carry depending on my part of the given mission. I had a M14 in a wood stock with an aftermarket scope rail, Tasco Super Sniper, and Leupold rings..A m14 in a sage stock with a Leupold Mk4..or a M4 with an acog and bipod.

90 percent of the time, I carried the M4. Why? Because I carried twice the ammo comfortably, was lethal to 400 meters and made shots out to 550, could use the rifle in a CQB scenario (and did often) if I needed to, and so I did not stand out amongst my squad as being the "different" guy and attracting bullets.

The M14s had their place in my lineup. In static OP's, with little (planned) foot movement, The M14 was king. Bet your ass my M4 was in a truck nearby.

What I am getting at is this, times have changed. There is ammo available for the M4 that shows huge gains in hard target penetration and lethality. Moreover, when shooting 62 grain M855 "green tip", I never had any problem landing shots and putting bad guys down. The M14 had no problem either, but was more cumbersome, and god forbid you are thrown into a CQB scenario with one.

To push my point a little farther, I was fortunate enough to be issued a MK18 kit for several months. In this kit, I had the option of carrying a 10.5inch 5.56 upper, or a my 14.5inch upper. While I was issued the kit, I opted for the 10.5 inch upper on every mission that did not require my SDM skills. I also took shots on bad guys with the 10.5 upper and the issued 62 grn m855. Even with the lost velocity, the 10.5in MK18 made kill shots out to 125ish meters.

In my opinion, there is no better weapon system to be issued to our troops then the M4. Our soldiers are deadly out to 400 meters with proper trigger time. Sure a lightweight rifle with big bullets that weigh as much as the 5.56, and shoot with little recoil, at a velocity that turns it into a supersonic wrecking ball would be cool, but that isnt reality. You must find a compromise, and the M4 is exactly that.

Mike

 

[dom1104]

Im digging this one up from a few pages back.

While I respect your experience, and no doubt believe what you say about the 7.62 being more popular in Vietnam, you would be out of your mind to pick a M14 over an M4 (I know you said m16 but this is 2011 and the M4 is the "newest" evolution of the m16) for todays combat.

Being a Squad Designated Marksmen in the Rakkasans for 4 years, I had my choice of rifles to carry depending on my part of the given mission. I had a M14 in a wood stock with an aftermarket scope rail, Tasco Super Sniper, and Leupold rings..A m14 in a sage stock with a Leupold Mk4..or a M4 with an acog and bipod.

90 percent of the time, I carried the M4. Why? Because I carried twice the ammo comfortably, was lethal to 400 meters and made shots out to 550, could use the rifle in a CQB scenario (and did often) if I needed to, and so I did not stand out amongst my squad as being the "different" guy and attracting bullets.

The M14s had their place in my lineup. In static OP's, with little (planned) foot movement, The M14 was king. Bet your ass my M4 was in a truck nearby.

What I am getting at is this, times have changed. There is ammo available for the M4 that shows huge gains in hard target penetration and lethality. Moreover, when shooting 62 grain M855 "green tip", I never had any problem landing shots and putting bad guys down. The M14 had no problem either, but was more cumbersome, and god forbid you are thrown into a CQB scenario with one.

To push my point a little farther, I was fortunate enough to be issued a MK18 kit for several months. In this kit, I had the option of carrying a 10.5inch 5.56 upper, or a my 14.5inch upper. While I was issued the kit, I opted for the 10.5 inch upper on every mission that did not require my SDM skills. I also took shots on bad guys with the 10.5 upper and the issued 62 grn m855. Even with the lost velocity, the 10.5in MK18 made kill shots out to 125ish meters.

In my opinion, there is no better weapon system to be issued to our troops then the M4. Our soldiers are deadly out to 400 meters with proper trigger time. Sure a lightweight rifle with big bullets that weigh as much as the 5.56, and shoot with little recoil, at a velocity that turns it into a supersonic wrecking ball would be cool, but that isnt reality. You must find a compromise, and the M4 is exactly that.

Mike

Sorry Mike, all your hands on experiance doesnt trump internet lore. Or superjews, or russian awesomeness, or guns from the 60s, that our fathers told us stories about.

Your real life expieriance has no place here.

 

[Socomike]

Sorry Mike, all your hands on experiance doesnt trump internet lore. Or superjews, or russian awesomeness, or guns from the 60s, that our fathers told us stories about.

Your real life expieriance has no place here.

Im sorry. I guess I forgot where I was and what we were discussing. My bad

 

[WillyUSMC]

Can't say I have many complaints about the m4 personally. I was issued an M16A2 with M203 (that was older than I am) for deployment while our riflemen were issued brand new out of the crate M4's. (which I generally commandeered from one of my guys for use in the gun turret for better manueverability) They had a very long break in period for the brand new ones (as do all new weapons) , but once properly broken in they were as reliable as anything given the less than ideal conditions of Iraq. M4 is a spectacular platform that is extremely versatile, and can adapt to most scenarios. As for the 5.56 being "insufficient in stopping power and only meant for wounding" I dare anyone who believes that to take a round to the chest (should only wound you and you'll be back on your feet in a few days right?). Its been my experience that the 7.62 rounds tend to pass clean through, whereas a 5.56 has a significant tumble effect causing more tissue damage and hemmorhaging, ultimately more kills with lighter ammo (lighter means more!). I'm certainly no expert but thats just my .

Semper Kill Devils

 

[dross]

Sorry Mike, all your hands on experiance doesnt trump internet lore. Or superjews, or russian awesomeness, or guns from the 60s, that our fathers told us stories about.

Your real life expieriance has no place here.

That's right. You're out here in the wilds of the internets now. You see, the real world is ruled by the laws of physics and risks and rewards that pay off or fail. Here, the rules change with the click of a keyboard, physics is nothing more than an entry in wikipedia, and google-fu is the martial art of choice.

That M14 might be heavy and unwieldy out there in the real desert, but here in the internet desert maybe you're just a wussy boy who needs to grow some muscles.

Now excuse me a minute, my Star Trek pajama bottoms are chafing me something awful. You don't know from agony.

 

[gunowner930]

Im digging this one up from a few pages back.

While I respect your experience, and no doubt believe what you say about the 7.62 being more popular in Vietnam, you would be out of your mind to pick a M14 over an M4 (I know you said m16 but this is 2011 and the M4 is the "newest" evolution of the m16) for todays combat.

Being a Squad Designated Marksmen in the Rakkasans for 4 years, I had my choice of rifles to carry depending on my part of the given mission. I had a M14 in a wood stock with an aftermarket scope rail, Tasco Super Sniper, and Leupold rings..A m14 in a sage stock with a Leupold Mk4..or a M4 with an acog and bipod.

90 percent of the time, I carried the M4. Why? Because I carried twice the ammo comfortably, was lethal to 400 meters and made shots out to 550, could use the rifle in a CQB scenario (and did often) if I needed to, and so I did not stand out amongst my squad as being the "different" guy and attracting bullets.

The M14s had their place in my lineup. In static OP's, with little (planned) foot movement, The M14 was king. Bet your ass my M4 was in a truck nearby.

What I am getting at is this, times have changed. There is ammo available for the M4 that shows huge gains in hard target penetration and lethality. Moreover, when shooting 62 grain M855 "green tip", I never had any problem landing shots and putting bad guys down. The M14 had no problem either, but was more cumbersome, and god forbid you are thrown into a CQB scenario with one.

To push my point a little farther, I was fortunate enough to be issued a MK18 kit for several months. In this kit, I had the option of carrying a 10.5inch 5.56 upper, or a my 14.5inch upper. While I was issued the kit, I opted for the 10.5 inch upper on every mission that did not require my SDM skills. I also took shots on bad guys with the 10.5 upper and the issued 62 grn m855. Even with the lost velocity, the 10.5in MK18 made kill shots out to 125ish meters.

In my opinion, there is no better weapon system to be issued to our troops then the M4. Our soldiers are deadly out to 400 meters with proper trigger time. Sure a lightweight rifle with big bullets that weigh as much as the 5.56, and shoot with little recoil, at a velocity that turns it into a supersonic wrecking ball would be cool, but that isnt reality. You must find a compromise, and the M4 is exactly that.

Mike

Sooo uhhh... What you're saying is you don't need a semi-auto elephant gun as battle rife to kill bad guys?

 

[Sylvain]

Since this thread is getting quite long I decided to add a poll.

 

[jeremy]

Since this thread is getting quite long I decided to add a poll.

You could not just let the thread die could ya....
LOL...


By the way I voted for the M-4 is still good for awhile, I would not say for decades personally, but definitely a while yet. I also think we should be exploring for its eventual replacement to though...

 

[ssgjason]

You could not just let the thread die could ya....
LOL...


By the way I voted for the M-4 is still good for awhile, I would not say for decades personally, but definitely a while yet. I also think we should be exploring for its eventual replacement to though...

I am just quoting cause it is much easier than rewriting the same thing

 

[Kelevra TAR-21]

Sorry Mike, all your hands on experiance doesnt trump internet lore. Or superjews, or russian awesomeness, or guns from the 60s, that our fathers told us stories about.

Your real life expieriance has no place here.

Wow, that is anti-semitic. Who do you think taught the seals and green berets. That is right The Super Jews. The Super Jews use The Tavor, M4 ect.... in battle. Has The United States tried any of these other guns? NO, I am afraid not. Also if you want me to get nasty is not a Marks Man someone who could not make it as a Sniper. Next thing you know you will tell me a Sherman tank is just as good as a Merkava Mark IV. Just remember you can kill someone with a baseball bat which is much lighter than a gun, but that does not make the bat better.

 

[jeremy]

Who do you think taught the seals and green berets. That is right The Super Jews.

Wrong again...

 

[22lr]

You guys are thinking about it all wrong. We just need to get that exoskeleton thing developed and equip our guys with 25mm bushmaster cannons. That will put a damper on some Jihad!

 

[xmas_asn]

Im digging this one up from a few pages back.

While I respect your experience, and no doubt believe what you say about the 7.62 being more popular in Vietnam, you would be out of your mind to pick a M14 over an M4 (I know you said m16 but this is 2011 and the M4 is the "newest" evolution of the m16) for todays combat.

Being a Squad Designated Marksmen in the Rakkasans for 4 years, I had my choice of rifles to carry depending on my part of the given mission. I had a M14 in a wood stock with an aftermarket scope rail, Tasco Super Sniper, and Leupold rings..A m14 in a sage stock with a Leupold Mk4..or a M4 with an acog and bipod.

90 percent of the time, I carried the M4. Why? Because I carried twice the ammo comfortably, was lethal to 400 meters and made shots out to 550, could use the rifle in a CQB scenario (and did often) if I needed to, and so I did not stand out amongst my squad as being the "different" guy and attracting bullets.

The M14s had their place in my lineup. In static OP's, with little (planned) foot movement, The M14 was king. Bet your ass my M4 was in a truck nearby.

What I am getting at is this, times have changed. There is ammo available for the M4 that shows huge gains in hard target penetration and lethality. Moreover, when shooting 62 grain M855 "green tip", I never had any problem landing shots and putting bad guys down. The M14 had no problem either, but was more cumbersome, and god forbid you are thrown into a CQB scenario with one.

To push my point a little farther, I was fortunate enough to be issued a MK18 kit for several months. In this kit, I had the option of carrying a 10.5inch 5.56 upper, or a my 14.5inch upper. While I was issued the kit, I opted for the 10.5 inch upper on every mission that did not require my SDM skills. I also took shots on bad guys with the 10.5 upper and the issued 62 grn m855. Even with the lost velocity, the 10.5in MK18 made kill shots out to 125ish meters.

In my opinion, there is no better weapon system to be issued to our troops then the M4. Our soldiers are deadly out to 400 meters with proper trigger time. Sure a lightweight rifle with big bullets that weigh as much as the 5.56, and shoot with little recoil, at a velocity that turns it into a supersonic wrecking ball would be cool, but that isnt reality. You must find a compromise, and the M4 is exactly that.

Mike

Witch Battalion? I was 2/187 and 3/187

 

[Kelevra TAR-21]

Wrong again...

No, I am afraid you are wrong.

 

[jeremy]

No, I am afraid you are wrong.

OK hero link it for me...

 

[Kelevra TAR-21]

My fault The Green Berets were trained by the silly British forces. The SEAL learnd from Israel

 

[jeremy]

My fault The Green Berets were trained by the silly British forces. The SEAL learnd from Israel

Still wrong...
Actually on both accounts...

 

[Kelevra TAR-21]

I will get this right.

The origins of the Green Beret which Special Forces personnel wear can be traced to Scotland during the Second World War. U.S. Army Rangers and Office of Strategic Services (OSS) operatives who underwent training from the British Commandos were awarded the Green Beret upon completion of the grueling and revolutionary commando course.

Still working on the seals. I watch so much of the military channel my info gets mixed up

 

[jeremy]

I will get this right.

The origins of the Green Beret which Special Forces personnel wear can be traced to Scotland during the Second World War. U.S. Army Rangers and Office of Strategic Services (OSS) operatives who underwent training from the British Commandos were awarded the Green Beret upon completion of the grueling and revolutionary commando course.

Still working on the seals. I watch so much of the military channel my info gets mixed up

LOL...
I'll give you a B for your effort...

The OSS is now what we call the CIA...

You quote is where the actual use of the "Green Beret" came from...

Training with is not the same as being trained by...